sigurdV

But isnt the age of the universe a well defined concept in both frames? This was just messaged to me on my question...Ill think it over: Consider a set of observers in different locations in the universe, all of whom are at rest with respect to the matter in their vicinity (these characters are usually termed fundamental observers). We can envisage them as each sitting on a different galaxy, and so receding from each other with the general expansion of the universe. We can define a global time coordinate t, which is the time measured by these observers - i.e. t is the proper time measured by an observer at rest with respect to the local matter distribution. This time, t, is called the Cosmological Time. This is the time for which the age of the universe is defined by.

This question is ancient, Parmenides gave this answer: Suppose nothing is, then it is so that nothing is. But if something is so then nothing is not.

So far ok... Being is not an ordinary something... but it is something that can be said of something, so it is definitely a something. And further: it is the only something that can be said about any something.So its a determinate something! I dont accept the step from being to indeterminate or pure being. How is the step motivated?

I just dont get it: Why then cant we simplify things by saying that a and b are simultaneous if they happen at exactly the same moment in time? I mean Im not saying that there is anything wrong when you calculate things by the methods of Special Relativity... Its just that the original definition looks circular to me and I wondered if the concepts on the different sides of the definition perhaps were different concepts... that would make the definition non circular but then there would be TWO concepts of simultanity and...Well Ill be happy when the matter clears up If there is a better thread for clearing my possible misunderstandings of relativity then tell me and Ill move, but seriously: Im more interested in the people Im discussing with than the thread itself One problem of mine was solved to my satisfaction in here ( Eh... the matter of the strength of the interference from an eventual ether isnt yet settled but I have confidence that it will be.) Perhaps I might tell it all now instead of taking one piece at the time? It started when the age of the universe was...Measured? Estimated? Guessed at? I wondered: Will this affect the theory of relativity in any way? Suppose we could measure the age wherever we are, as fast as convenient and as exact as convenient. Wouldnt we then have access to a measure of simultanity? Something equivalent to absolute time as concieved by Newton? Take the two ships passing each other with constant speed in intergalactic space...it is said that it cant be decided if one ship is resting and the other moves... Would not a comparisation betwen local time and the age of the universe tell? If a ship moves relative to the universe then local time should pass slower than the aging of the universe. If the ship is at rest the speeds would be the same. So I felt I should do some reading...and lol! I got stuck already on the MM experiment and again stuck on the definition of simultanity and gave up the idea! Still my question irritated me and here I am to get the matter explained.

Thank you guys! The boats and the current made it clear...damned how stupid I can be out of my proper surrounding. So I guess I no longer expect a null result unless the current is very weak... How strong must the ether wind be to be detected? Might it be so weak that very long distances are needed for the effect to be noticeable? Where do I get my next obstacle cleared? Its the definition of simultanity, isnt it circular? "Two events a and b are simultaneous if and only if the arrival of light emitted from a and b at the midpoint of ab is simultaneous."

I will never believe a square is a circle or that nothing is something... Any argument leading to such conclusions is fallacious. In the Ancient style: 1 Suppose nothing is. 2 Then it is so, that nothing is! 3 But since something is so, then nothing is not. In a more Modern style: Theres the basic statement function: "x is" (Satisfied by anything except what is nothing.) And theres its complementary function: "x is not" (Satisfied only by what is nothing.) Theres is no way but sophistry for them to be a unity!

It does not matter if god exists or not since if god does not exist then Reality has to contain all necessary attributes of god. In a sense then... Reality is god! So god exists! This seems to be a proof of the existence of god so how is it refuted? My point here is that one function of god is to create reality... but that only moves the problem one step away, since now one asks who created god? So god created himself they say. So if theres no god... then why couldnt Reality do what god was supposed to do? We dont know if Reality is godlike or not, do we?

Not all knowledge is about observable things...theres mathematics and logic for instance so I think reason (together with observation) is how we get knowledge in general... I just wanted to point out that we cant observe the principle that we come by knowledge by observing things. What we know about "nothing" seems to come mostly from reason...since it cant be observed. Tricky topic this one. Im slightly surprised to see you in a thread dominated by Hegelian abuse of logic, wouldnt you just inform us that the first law of Thermodynamics forbids energy to be created out of nothing?

We begin by firmly claiming that: Nothing is! Eh... we are saying that it indeed is so that nothing is! Oh! Arent we saying that it IS so that it is SO that nothing is? We are actually saying that something IS when we are saying that nothing is! But if something is... then nothing is not... So it is really so that we have proved that something is and nothing is not. If we change the tense used in the proof we can likewise prove that nothing was not and that nothing will never be.

Hi Moontanman! How do we know that all we know about is what we can observe? Can we actually observe it, or do we somehow reason us to it?

Hi! Your thinking is not so easy to follow. The topic is Ancient! A fellow named Parmenides gave around three thousand years ago a satisfactory treatment of the problem. He claimed that the statement:" Nothing is." is self contradictory and therefore not true! Not much of his texts have survived only the claim but not the proof so lets try ourselves: We begin by firmly claiming that: Nothing is! Eh... we are saying that it indeed is so that nothing is! Oh! Arent we saying that it IS so that it IS so that nothing is? We are actually saying that something IS when we are saying that nothing is! But if something is... then nothing is not... So it is really so that we have proved that something is and nothing is not. If we change the tense used in the proof we can likewise prove that nothing was not and that nothing will never be. This is Logic as Ancient as we can trace it

Hi whats the most elementary thread in here on the MM experiment? I never understood why the experiment was expected not to have a null result. (And dont expect ever to understand why...My immediate reaction was that what was lost in the travel to the mirror would be gained on the way back.)

Here is an argument I want to get checked. I first posted it in Philosophy since its immediate concequences are probably most of philosophical interest. But now ,on second thought, I decided that Philosophers lacks the necessary qualifications: They dont usually show any logic ability. Their forte is NOT checking proofs The question of Paradoxes is of some Mathematical interest: It is known how to remove them (preventing self reference) , but then they can no longer be derived,analysed and solved. So Dear Mathematician: Is there an error somewhere in the argument below? (Ahem...I did not intend underlining everything above, and neither this line...sigh) Definition: y is a Liar Identity if and only if y is of the form: x = "x is not true", and if y is true then x is a Liar Sentence defined by y. No liar identity is Logically true. Proof (Based on: (a=b) implies (Ta<-->Tb) 1. Suppose x="x is not true" (assumption) 2. Then x is true if and only if "x is not true" is true (from 1) 3. And we get: x is true if and only if x is not true (from 2) 4. This contradicts the assumption. (QED) The logical form of the Liar Paradox: 1. x is not true. 2. x = "x is not true". Some values for x makes the Liar Identity Empirically true: 1. Sentence 1 is not true. 2. Sentence 1 = " Sentence 1 is not true." To get to the paradox one must produce "3. Sentence 1 is true." from sentences 1 and 2. But since sentence 2 is BOTH Empirically true and Logically false it can not be a well formed sentence! Therefore no paradox can be derived from sentence 1. Any comment this far?

A new approach to Paradoxes. Definition: y is a Liar Identity if and only if y is of the form: x = "x is not true", and if y is true then x is a Liar Sentence defined by y. No liar identity is Logically true. Proof (Based on: (a=b) implies (Ta<-->Tb) 1. Suppose x="x is not true" (assumption) 2. Then x is true if and only if "x is not true" is true (from 1) 3. And we get: x is true if and only if x is not true (from 2) 4. This contradicts the assumption. (QED) The logical form of the Liar Paradox: 1. x is not true. 2. x = "x is not true". Some values for x makes the liar Identity Empirically true: 1. Sentence 1 is not true. 2. Sentence 1 = " Sentence 1 is not true." To get to the paradox one must produce " 3. Sentence 1 is true." from sentences 1 and 2. But since sentence 2 is BOTH Empirically true and Logically false it can not be a well formed sentence! Therefore no paradox can be derived from sentence 1. Any comment this far? PS To the moderator: I decided to ask the Mathematicians for checking my argument, since I believe they are better equipped for checking arguments. If one thread must be closed so close this one. I will then later return to Philosophy to continue on its philosophical consequences once its verified that my argument does not contain any errors.

Ilya prigogine defined life as a dissipative system far from equilibrium...A thermodynamic picture! Otherwise theres not much news on theese old questions. One minor criticism: Theres no proof life started on earth...It might have come from elsewhere!